State Law Nullifies Feds Gun Rules

As the federal government reaches the zenith in the rhetoric over gun control, including Vice President Joe Biden promising that Barack Obama will use executive orders to implement policies against firearms, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived a case adopted by several states, that tells Washington where they can stick their gun rules.

The president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, Gary Marbut is the only individual listed as plaintiff in the case of MSSA v. Holder, which is scheduled to be heard on March 4. Oral arguments will begin on that day in Portland, Oregon.

While the 9th Circuit is an often overturned court, it is the hope of Mr. Marbut to get a ruling and then proceed to the United States Supreme Court.

“You probably know that I wrote the Montana Firearms Freedom Act to mount a challenge to federal ‘Commerce Clause’ power, using firearms as the vehicle for the exercise,” Marbut said as he announced the Court's decision.

“The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are simply not subject to any federal authority under the power given to Congress in the Constitution to ‘regulate commerce … among the states.”

Montana is one of many states that is bringing this kind of legislation (HB 246) to their state governments.

According to the Michigan Firearms Freedom Act (HB 5232), it is declared that that firearms that are made, sold and kept in their state does not fall under any federal laws or requirements.

Seven other states have offered similar legislation as that of Montana. Among those states are Tennessee (SB 1610), Utah (SB 11), Wyoming (HB 95), South Dakota (SB 89), Arizona (HB 2307), Idaho (HB 589), and Alaska (HB 186). Discover where your state is on the Firearms Freedom Act here.

WND reported when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation, officials there took the unusual step of including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who “enforces or attempts to enforce” federal gun rules on a “personal firearm.”

The costs could be up to two years in prison and $2,000 in fines for an offender there.

Filings already submitted to the appellate panel challenge whether the judges will choose a “tyrannical” Washington or a federal government restrained by the Constitution.

“The government may argue that it is not, in its current incarnation, tyrannical. The national government usually abides by the law, typically protects its citizens’ rights, and always celebrates in its peaceful transfers of power. Whatever fear appellants or anyone else may have of its becoming tyrannical, the government may argue, is no more than disingenuous alarmism,” the brief explains.

“Such an argument would be wrong.”

The brief explains the federal government already has proven that it is tyrannical.

“The wholesale stripping of independent sovereignty from the states has destroyed the balance of power, and given the federal government advantages it demonstrably tends to abuse. The outrage that is our $14.5 trillion national debt may be the worst example. The borning cry of the American Revolution was ‘no taxation without representation.’ By borrowing more money than the current generation can repay in our lifetimes, Congress leaves a legacy of debt for future generations. Our progeny did not vote for the monumental hole their parents are digging for them. Still they will certainly be saddled with the duty to make good. This is tyranny.”

Unruh went on to point out that "A number of Montana legislators submitted a brief that said the Tenth Amendment is the 'final safeguard' against federal encroachment on state authority. And a brief from the states of Utah, Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming said Washington’s 'enumerated powers' under the Constitution simply don’t include the authority to regulate intrastate activity."

"Also filing briefs with the 9th Circuit were Gun Owners of America and the Goldwater Institute and Cato Institute," he writes, "who argued the U.S. Supreme Court has determined “Congress may not ‘commandeer’ state legislatures by requiring them to legislate as directed by the federal government.”

Currently the Tenth Amendment Center is following a host of issues where states are in the process of nullification of federal laws.

I will move to, and support, any state that will stand up to this tyrant!

MSGT Lucy Garza USMC (RET)

VGN1967griz: Read the article again. Wyoming, the reddest state in the union, has included into it's Constitution that any federal agent who enforces or tries to enforce federal gun laws onto the Wyoming citizens firearms, will be subject to prosecution and face up to 2 years in prison and $2,000 fine.

Wyoming state legislature members are mostly ranch and farm owners and have been for literally generations. Thes efolks have grown up and had guns all their lives. They are adamant in keeping them free of federal statutes and regulations.

U.S. Senators Mike Enzi and John Barrasso WY-R) and House rep. Cynthia Lummis WY-R) are all very conservative Republicans are the spearhead in the battle to end Federal takeover of the U.S. Constitution, especially the Second Amendment. They are the reason Ovomit's efforts to get the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty up for a vote in the Senate and House failed.

Residents of the sates where the states have included into their states Constitution have passed legislation prohibiting the feds to control firearms should write a hard copy letter to each of the members who supported their states gun rights laws and thank them. I did! Join the NRA today. I upgraded my membership to benefactor status and wrote a healthy check to help them fight Ovomit's dictatorial tactics. If possible, you can help, too. Thanks.

MSGT Lucy Garza U.S.M.C. (RET)

socialisimmustgo

Thank you for your service and your financial support of the issues and for the great state of wyoming having the good sense of logical reasoning against insanity i also read that other states have preceded or followed suit whichever it is ..........i like how Montana has petition that states the federal government is practising tyranny and has been for decades with TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION ....of unborn subjects through continuing federal defecits.........i say exterminate the SOCIALIST MAD DOGS! and send them back to the crown corporation along with peirs morgan idiot bafoon!

pjk40

Ironically, I cannot find a firearm manufacturer in Michigan (dealers and parts suppliers, yes), so if anyone knows of one, can you post it here? What good is a state law like this if there is no one to "provide the goods"? They passed a similar law regarding light bulbs, but again, I know of no light bulb manufacturer in Michigan that would make skirting Federal laws a real possibility. Now that Michigan has passed the "Right to Work" law, some enterprising group may wish to come to Michigan and open a firearms plant! Think about it; you'd get high sales numbers, loyal employees and customers, and the right to stamp "MADE IN MICHIGAN" on every gun you make! Any takers?????

Jeff H

Personally I am not in favor of this. It is way to easy to have a state turn on these rules by an election change. I am also not in favor of having Congress or the President make rules for me regarding guns. It should be the courts following the law of the land that even presidents should not break. My right to bear arms. It is time the courts quit hiding from our president, or fear of doing what everyone may or may not want and step up and declare all men are given these rights. The rights as established in our Bill of Rights and Constitution to defend themselves from danger, both foreign and domestic. Foreign as in the people of the United States shall not be led by the UN or any government that wants to infringe upon us. Domestic as any leader who wishes to remove these rights from us. There is a reason the founders stuck with the basics and left the states to determine what else they want to live by. It is about time that the next generation pick up from where they left off.

U.S.Cavalry

Everyone should recall--all un-Constitutional laws are unlawful and are null and void. Separation of powers--the president doesnot have the authority to legislate laws.Thus any ex-order against the Constitution is unlawful & unconstitutional. The president authority is not above the constitution. And he cannot make changes to the constitution. Only congress can do that.

socialisimmustgo

congress can do it if they want but i don't recognize their credibility when they have been derelict of duty and in contempt of the constitution themselves we need to tell all of them to go to you know where they get elected to represent and then they don't then they abuse their powers and legislate garbage which is illegal ...........violates our rights and extorts revenue for their own benefit according to their plays on wall street it is time to expel all the extortionists pull the revenue out from under the crown corporations and restore the republic and the true rule of law ...........IMPEACH THEM ALL!

http://www.facebook.com/crzydancer Richard Holmes

NOTHING bammyboy has done should be obeyed. All of the politicians now in office must be replaced.

Right Wing Nut

I love all these proclamations of Constitutional law and States rights. It reminds me of Dudley Doright reminding Snidely that he is a Royal Canadian Mounty as the train approaches the track he is tied to.. The fact is, this ship has sailed. What part of these people fails to realize we are under full control of a regime that calles itself Progressive, was spawned from Socialism, but now possesses 95 percent of the characteristics of Naziism? It's over folks. You are looking at 75 to 100 years of totalitarianism. The majority of the people will have to come to realize they were duped and they will have to be so frustrated and hungry that death looks good to them. Then a civil war and then years more choas and maybe just another tyrannical goverment. What a great gift we gave up. Most of us will never live to see it return.

Me_in_Canada_eh

No one's tried to take anyone's guns away yet. When that happens, the 40 million citizens of the US who hold firearms will make their presence known.

http://www.facebook.com/gene.r.swank Gene R Swank

The supreme court has ruled twice in the past that an unconstitutional law is null and void, and can not be enforced. An executive order is not law. Obumer can go strait to hell with out passing go!!!!!!! The second ammenndment says it shal NOT be Infringed. Any gun control law is a violation of the second ammendment and is null and void and can not be enforced.

pduffy

Ok, so shall we attempt to enumerate the list of unconstitutional agencies that should have been 'nullified' decades ago? The list is ENORMOUS. Let's start with the 'department of education' (DOE). Not authorized in the Constitution as a federal power. How about the 'department of housing and urban development' (HUD). Not authorized in the constitution. FCC (Federal communications commission), not authorized. FDA (Food and Drug administration), NOT authorized. EPA (Environmental Poisoning agency) - NOT authorized. SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) - NOT Authorized. DOA - Department of Agriculture - NOT authorized. SSA - Social Security Administration - NOT authorized. DHS - Gestapo - NOT authorized. FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) - NOT authorized. And how about the infamous BATF - that agency was created to enforce prohibition, but guess what, even after prohibition was REPEALED the thugs kept their jobs, and now they want control of YOUR GUNS, and even run them into Mexico! The list goes ON, and ON, and ON, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Some of these functions MAY be necessary to resolve conflict in a society, but they are NOT functions of the federal government according to the enumerated powers of the U.S. constitution. ALL of these so-called 'powers' were taken after the Federalists destroyed the states during the 'Civil War', and once the states were made vassals, the rest is history. They WANT total control, and that includes your guns. The tell you how many gallons your toilet can have, so why not tell you what gun you can own? You laid down and gave up all your other freedoms, and now you are finally drawing a line in the sand? How pathetic.

rennyangel

Very interesing but under FDR, the nitwit Sup. Ct. ruled a guy growing hay on his own farm for his own animals and not for sale could be regulated by DC under the Commerce clause, which is what the Dems. tried to base ocare on until Roberts said it was a tax.

pduffy

And herein lies the problem - when GOVERNMENT agents commit crimes, the generally go unpunished, and unless some vigilante, like Tim McVey, gets revenge in an unlawful way, there is no justice. Therefore, these new 'penalties' on federal agents must be administered to teach them their limits with fear. The only thing left now is the rebellion of the people against such tyranny, and the states must assert force against this power, or it will consume the world.

http://www.facebook.com/judy.ratliff.94 Judy Ratliff

Yes we know. But get the tards to believe it.

leroy beetenoff

leave my guns alone. I will not surrender my liberties and freedoms to adolf obama

Swed.

A unconstitutional law is void, Period. It does not natter what Obummer and the drunk idiot biden want, their word is NOT law, the Constitution is. Throw the bastards in jail. Treason Fraud, Collusion, perjury theft, murder to name a few.

freedomringsforall

Yeah
Fight to keep all our rights!

Wolf-Talker1

When a State, any State becomes too big for its Britches the Government (the Fed) will find a way, any way to tke it over!

http://www.facebook.com/gene.r.swank Gene R Swank

If the people rise up and tell the feds no believe me they will stop or there will be a short bloody war, The American Patriot has never lost a war and we wont lose this one!!!!!!!!!!

danimal

LOCK AND LOAD!! The time to take back what is ours is closer than you think. The blood will spill, on both sides. The American people, we know who we are, will fight tooth and nail, it will make The French Underground of WW2 look like an icecream social.

fliteking

State law does trump federal law on this and many other issues.

Problem: No State lawmaker has the stones to say "no" to federal mandates and then risk the loss of "federal dollars".

Perhaps every State should be self-funded, then each State could closely follow the Constitution and the Federal Employee list would be greatly reduced.

Win Win.

pduffy

Self-funded means self-governed, and when you are financially independent, that means you have your own currency. To accomplish what you propose, the U.S. federal reserve note (aka the dollar), must be ditched, but the last time somebody tried that, a little thing called the 'Civil War' broke out. Funny how historians never mention that the south declaring it's own money is what caused the war, not 'slavery'.

WorthlessPaper

Actually being financially independent does not mean you need your own money. You simply have to rely on your own earning capacity to regulate your spending. You could use any currency you wish and still be "independent". You lose your independence when you take handouts from Washington not when you use their currency.

pduffy

As long as they have control of the printing presses, they can 'delude' your currency, and delude your labor, so the currency is the control. There is no other power in the world but money, this is why governments wants to spend so much of it. The more they spend, the more power they have. It's as simple as that. This was my point about the Civil War. The people of the south divorced themselves from Washington DC's money, and that is what made them independent. When they started printing their own money, that's when the Fed's decided to attack. Slavery had nothing to do with it.

fliteking

All true, and the Civil War also brought about the end of Slavery . . . an important point to retain.

pduffy

Well slavery didn't end with Lincoln. The power to hold slaves was transferred from individual slave holders to the government, and hence the reason for the war - the government lusted for this power and didn't want individuals to have it, but took it for itself via taxation. The old slave holders taxed their slaves by stealing their labor, but not all of it, because they were allowed to keep enough to live. This is the purpose of the income tax. You are a slave, but you are free to pick the job you want to work as a slave, but you are 'taxed' instead. That's the only real difference. To steal a man's labor (his income), either by taxes or by forced slavery is the same.

For the first 140 years of this country there was no income tax. How did it survive before the government took the slaves? The income tax was put in place to make reparations for slavery, and now we can see the result in government wealth transfer programs - reverse slavery.

rennyangel

If states and schools did not take federal aid, they would not be subject to all fed.. mandates.

http://www.facebook.com/crzydancer Richard Holmes

It is tax payer money. We are not subject to anything the fed says if we don't agree to it. Time to throw off this oppressive government.

VN1967griz

Think I saw 8-10 state "HBs" in the above article. Would seem that those state legislators have cajones to tell the feds to go straight to hell. This could result in a huge 10th AND 2nd Amendment battle if all, or most Red State legislatures follow suit. At some point the states are going to have to tell barry to get bent! Proud to be a Montanan..